Why does Windows suck so much?

[cabri]

You install a new program and you can't run it because of a cryptic error message. Turns out you need Visual C++ runtime libraries. Isn't that made by Microsoft? Why wouldn't they just include it with the OS?

Okay, let's hunt for that installer. Do I need 2008, 2010, 2012, or 2013? Because they're all completely different and not included in the same installer. No, that would make too much sense. Do you need 64-bit or 32-bit? Because they're also different, incompatible, and not included in the same archive or with the OS.

Oops, I downloaded the update for Visual Studio, not the runtime libraries. Let's go back to that website and hunt through a list longer than my arm. What's SP1? No, I do not want to install the Bing Bar, asshole.

Of course they couldn't just include it with Windows Update. That would be too convenient.

And Windows Update. Man, this piece of crap. You have to run it, download, install, restart, run it, download, install, restart, run it, download, install, restart. Repeat this 20 more times and just maybe you'll have all the necessary updates. Maybe.

those RTL (DLLs) are application specific.

While VC++ may require some there are other compilers out there; MS may not be allowed to provide those up front.

You seem to have a problem separating applications by others and the relevant installation package from the OS itself.

 

[Rakehellion]

those RTL (DLLs) are application specific.

While VC++ may require some there are other compilers out there; MS may not be allowed to provide those up front.

You seem to have a problem separating applications by others from the OS itself.

So you need a different DLL for every application. I kind of doubt that.

 

[mrjminer]

The software package was Windows. And the legal issue is something you just made up.

Yea, Windows requires files that it doesn't include in order to run, and you have to download them to an external device and manually extract them just to get a fresh install going. The EU imposes no restrictions on MS. There are no monopoly laws or any legal rulings against MS in any country. They are above the law, except when they ship their broken flagship product that doesn't work unless you otherwise obtain runtime libraries and extract them onto your drive yourself.

Get real, nimrod.

 

[Rakehellion]

"I don't doubt that MS would" = speculation = bullshit.

 

[jlee]

So you need a different DLL for every application. I kind of doubt that.

I bet you know more than those Korean engineers about fuel economy, too.

 

[Ichinisan]

The installer package for that application should have included the runtime libraries. Maybe they had a pre-requisite for one of the .NET Framework packages? You get that through Windows Update.

That said, Windows is horrible. Especially with the way it handles (or more precisely, doesn't handle) software installation and removal. I used it from 1996-present and I've always felt this way.

 

[Gunbuster]

Every program I have installed that requires the Visual C++ Lib has been competent enough to install it on it's own automatically.

Don't blame MS because your app vendor did a shit job of packaging the installer.

 

[mrjminer]

"I don't doubt that MS would" = speculation = bullshit.

So, you can't install a basic program and every claim you've made in this thread has been completely false, but I'm speculating by saying that something they make freely available is just not included because they want to be dicks about it.

You are a comedic individual, but please, go on about your inability to install software.

 

[sandorski]

Every program I have installed that requires the Visual C++ Lib has been competent enough to install it on it's own automatically.

Don't blame MS because your app vendor did a shit job of packaging the installer.

This.

 

[Ichinisan]

I still think the OS should have more responsibility when it comes to software installation and removal.

Why are applications expected to clean up after themselves with their own uninstaller? If installation and uninstallation was properly handled by the OS (and this should have been done since '95), you'd have a mature and refined procedure with appropriate error messages about dependencies, properly standardized and presented in the language of your operating system. You'd probably even get good information about where to get the pre-requisite dependencies.

I've also thought this was obvious since the advent of Windows Update:
Why can't Windows Update allow applications to register a web server to get notifications about software updates? Then we won't have 8+ "updater" processes running in the background (Google, Yahoo, Java, Adobe, Apple, etc...) with various names that don't necessarily indicate clearly what they are...occupying some amount of system resources 100% of the time.

When XP came out, it broke compatibility with a lot of older software (mostly 16-bit). That would have been a good time for Microsoft to make all previous software run in a compatibility environment. They should have made it so app installs can only activate a background service or startup process through an OS API that generates a user prompt...which the user can decline.

The world would be a better place if that had happened.

 

[IronWing]

The "I'm a techie" circlejerk is here at reply 1.

Do you also bitch about all the unicorns on the brony forums?

 

[Rakehellion]

Every program I have installed that requires the Visual C++ Lib has been competent enough to install it on it's own automatically.

Don't blame MS because your app vendor did a shit job of packaging the installer.

Not all software comes with an installer. Most doesn't.

 

[Attic]

All kidding aside, computers are still FAR from foolproof.

Too old or too new software, updates, drivers, dependencies etc... there are plenty of times when the average user just clicks 'next' with the hope that it works... and when it doesn't I'm sure they give up. The stuff might not be difficult if you are a computer tech, but its all cryptic to most people.


Maybe Macs are better, I don't know.

This. Macs are great for some folks compared to Windows, others not so much. They are different.

That being said, updating Windows is not a difficult task, though OSX is better at this. I think generally if you don't like windows or don't like OSX, you are going to let yourself get frustrated more quickly at things. Trick is to know that, and then stop it.

OS's can improve a lot. OSX is in the lead IMO for home type users usability as well as flaire. I expect windows 10 to do good things, 8 was not a great sign though.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Windows sucks for the same reason it is awesome- it is the most general purpose OS ever made. A jack of all trades does nothing well.

Honestly my AMD X2 running XP in 2005 probably did everything I could want a computer to do function-wise. I have used newer software since then, but no category of software I use (web browser, productivity, image editing, torrenting, video playback, disk burning, older system emulation,etc.) has come into existence since then. In fact ever since then all I have done is try to shift these functions to other platforms, even at the detriment of some of the functionality or system power.

I do my web browsing on a iPad, gaming on my phone, image editing on my Macbook, console emulation on my iPad, video playback on my Linux machines, etc. In some cases the new platform for the task adds benefits (like a ten foot interface appliance for video playback on Linux), but if I am honest and consider the set of tasks that can be done I have never surpassed that 2005 experience.

In fact in many cases I take regression (like typing on a iPad) to avoid having to do things on my Windows desktop.

 

[Markbnj]

Just let Download.com manage your system.

 

[Scarpozzi]

It's always a challenge getting all your prereqs installed. I prefer linux when I can just use yum to install what I need and let it get the dependencies where possible....saves a ton of time.

I think the real key is to RTFM so you know what you need installed. If you've got requirements of dot net or something else, at least you can install it once and be done with it... Save your installers somewhere locally and export them if you have to resintall the OS to save you time.

 

[gorcorps]

Things have never been easier to install and update than they are right now. Sounds like this is just a problem with this particular program, because I sure as hell don't have to do anything when installing a program after picking an install location.

I won't go as far as to say it's a user issue, but it certainly isn't Windows when that's the only program that acts like that.

 

[Gunbuster]

Not all software comes with an installer. Most doesn't.

Really? Most Windows software does not use an installer of some sort? :whiste: care to detail how you came to that conclusion?

 

[Rakehellion]

Things have never been easier to install and update than they are right now. Sounds like this is just a problem with this particular program, because I sure as hell don't have to do anything when installing a program after picking an install location.

I won't go as far as to say it's a user issue, but it certainly isn't Windows when that's the only program that acts like that.

There are tons of apps that use the VC++ libraries.

Disregarding how easy they are or aren't to install, is there really a compelling reason as to why they're not included in the OS?

 

[Rakehellion]

Really? Most Windows software does not use an installer of some sort? :whiste: care to detail how you came to that conclusion?

http://download.cnet.com

 

[amyklai]

OMG. Packaging the required libraries is the job of the application vendor.
Microsoft can't do it because you can't expect them to package all past, current and future libraries that are out there with their OS (in a lot of cases they couldn't do it if they wanted because they don't have the license to do so). So if your application vendor uses a library, they have to include it in their installer.

 

[smackababy]

There are tons of apps that use the VC++ libraries.

Disregarding how easy they are or aren't to install, is there really a compelling reason as to why they're not included in the OS?

The same reason Java doesn't include every iteration of their JVM in a single install? There are different versions of the libraries. And, in Windows 8 (possibly Windows 7) the .NET runtime is already a part of the system, at least, the latest version is.

And, programs compiled using that run time generally include it in their installer. The fact you're downloading crap off cnet is evidence as such.

Didn't you also try and brag about being a good programmer and banging lots of women? Seems like both are a lie.

 

[Hugo Drax]

You install a new program and you can't run it because of a cryptic error message. Turns out you need Visual C++ runtime libraries. Isn't that made by Microsoft? Why wouldn't they just include it with the OS?

Okay, let's hunt for that installer. Do I need 2008, 2010, 2012, or 2013? Because they're all completely different and not included in the same installer. No, that would make too much sense. Do you need 64-bit or 32-bit? Because they're also different, incompatible, and not included in the same archive or with the OS.

Oops, I downloaded the update for Visual Studio, not the runtime libraries. Let's go back to that website and hunt through a list longer than my arm. What's SP1? No, I do not want to install the Bing Bar, asshole.

Of course they couldn't just include it with Windows Update. That would be too convenient.

And Windows Update. Man, this piece of crap. You have to run it, download, install, restart, run it, download, install, restart, run it, download, install, restart. Repeat this 20 more times and just maybe you'll have all the necessary updates. Maybe.

Because Microsoft is a sloppy company. Microsoft would be the equivalent of General Motors in the late 1970s

They are the #1 in volume sales for Operating Systems. This means they do not really care to improve the framework of the operating system.

Window OS is a sloppy crufty operating system compared to OS X.

 

[SunnyD]

2005 called. They want their complaint back.

Seriously, if you're having this issue, stop using shitty applications that don't properly package required redistributables with their application.

Not all software comes with an installer. Most doesn't.

If by "most" you mean "virtually none except trivial applications or applications that DO have installers with the required dependencies but you're too elitist to use the installer so you're setting yourself up to look like an ignorant asshat in thread just like this..." :hmm:

 

[mmntech]

sudo apt-get update
sudo app-apt repository "deb http://www.blahblahblah .com"
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
sudo apt-get install program